Why is the US Air Force collecting samples of Russian DNA?

The US Air Force recently put out a request for samples of DNA and RNA from Russians and people of Russian descent. Their reasons are unclear. This story, fairly predictably, has got very little coverage in the MSM…none, in fact. Vladimir Putin mentioned it in a speech, and there have been articles in the alternative media (The Duran and Zero Hedge have mentioned it, and some international networks such as RT, teleSur etc.)…but mainstream news? Totally silent.

This is not some “crazy conspiracy theory”, the request (pictured above) is publicly available on US government websites.

The lack of coverage of this issue in the MSM, while predictable, still serves to highlight how little objectivity our notionally free press really have. Can you imagine the headlines if Russia, China or Iran’s military had started doing research on British or American DNA samples?

The hysteria would be deafening.

So the question becomes…why? The memo states that the samples “must be Caucasian and Russian”, and that they will “not consider” samples from Ukraine. Why would that be the case? People are theorizing it’s for bio-weapons research, and that’s possible, there are other possibilities too.

None of them are benign.

We were sent the following open letter from Alexander Korobko, the director of Russia’s DNA Project, by a third-party. In it Mr Korobko asks all the important questions. We will let you know if any of them ever receive official answers.

Mr. Marcus Mattingly, US Air Force.

Cc: Mr. Donald Trump

Synovial Tissue / RNA Samples
Solicitation Number: FA3016-17-U-0164

Dear Mr. Mattingly,

I am a Russian journalist researching the aforementioned solicitation.

DNA analysis and archaeogenetics are somewhat of a home turf to me. My documentary about the Russian genetic origins of ancient Orcadians (the inhabitants of the Orkney Islands north of Scotland) was broadcast in several countries and has won a few awards. I owe that also to a top geneticist from Cambridge University who assisted me in my research.

I am very much puzzled with your solicitation. The situation is on the brink of a major international scandal. The US Air Force faces accusations of either developing bioweapons or practicing eugenics and, God forbid, of following in the footsteps of infamous Dr. Mengele. In the interests of fairness, I would like to offer your Department a chance to explain the nature of that solicitation.

Also, I would be grateful if you or your colleagues would kindly provide answers to the following questions:

1. The genetic pool in Russia is very diverse. People who look 100% “Caucasian” can have past “contributing” ethnicities ranging from, say, Iran/India to central Russia to a tribe in Yakutiya. For example, our Defence Minister Shoygu has a mixture of a Tuvan/Turkic Y-chromosome and a Slavic Russian mtDNA. A conspiracy theorist may even argue that it would be easier to design an “ethnic” weapon targeting his US counterpart, Mr. James Mattis since his both parents are from the same genetic pool, but even his more distant ancestors can comprise various surprising ethnicities from all over the place.

So, are you trying to develop a “targeted” genetic weapon against the Russians if such a thing is scientifically feasible at all?

2. Why do you need my compatriots’ synovial tissue? And why do you insist on samples from Russia, but not from Ukraine, as ethnically/genetically those are the same people?! I can provide you with plenty of conclusive genetic info to that effect.

3. Is the US Airforce being used as a tool in a psyop, a provocation? My consultant from Cambridge University can’t quite wrap his head around your tender, and there’s a feeling it may be a jeer wrapped in an enigma. In that case it would a very bad joke, a Nazi kind of humour, really.

4. Your spokesman explained that “the researchers are using the samples to conduct musculoskeletal research aimed at identifying the different biomarkers associated with injury and were not targeting Russians with the study”. The explanation was somewhat vague, so let me try to re-construct in no-nonsense terms and let me know if I understood him correctly. So some US company (which you can’t name, right?) sold you the first set of samples? You don’t know if they acquired them legally or illegally in Russia, but it was Russia because that’s where they could get them, could be any country, right? But now you (i.e. the US Airforce) need some supplementary biological “material”, which has to be from the same country to match the original samples? One problem there: you haven’t specified the part of Russia where the original stuff comes from, and as Russians’ DNA groups vary from one region to another often more widely than, say, from country to country in the EU, the tender is either unscientific as far as genetics go, or the explanation doesn’t make much sense, scientifically speaking…. which is it?

Looking forward to hearing from you and clearing up the matter, which has the potential of sparking a media equivalent of the Caribbean crisis.

77 Comments

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and International Affairs and Security Analyst via Moscow, Mark Sleboda discuss the incredible story of the US-funded biomedical laboratory, that has now been implicated in a bioweapons scandal near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, which according to statements made by the Russian Defense Ministry have resulted in the death of dozens of Georgians, killed by US toxins disguised as drug research trials.

In a bombshell statement from Russian Defense Ministry, evidence has surfaced showing that the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research (near the Georgian capital Tbilisi) appears to have conducted bioweapons research under the guise of a drug test, claiming the lives of at least 73 people.

According to RT, the question of what really might have taken place at the secretive US-sponsored research facility hosted by Russia’s southern neighbor was raised by the Russian military on Thursday after they studied files published online by a former Georgian minister.

The documents record the deaths of 73 people over a short period of time, indicating a test of “a highly toxic chemical or biological agents with high lethality rate,” said Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian military branch responsible for defending troops from radiological, chemical and biological weapons.

Kirillov apparently doubted that the tests, carried out by the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research near the Georgian capital Tbilisi, involved clinical trials of a drug called Sovaldi, which is meant for the treatment of Hepatitis C. The producer of the drug is Gilead Sciences, a California-based biomedical firm that recruited former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a board member in 1988, in between his two tenures as head of the Pentagon.

I think there is too much read into this. This is a spoof to enter information stream. Its basic goal is division between Ukrainians and Russians. (note the “not Ukrainian DNA” in the request). I really doubt that there is DNA difference between most Ukrainians and Russians. This is similar to another request made by US Navy soliciting construction companies in Sevastopol, Crimea right before the whole thing unraveled in 2014. Goal then was enticing Russia into conflict. See link (www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1)

Russian government and media distort the harmless reality of Russian DNA samples being given to the U.S….. and somehow, it’s the fault of the U.S. that an anti-American psychological warfare was launched by Russia, involving endless claims of “bioweapons” targeting the country using American facilities in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, etc., and, of course, these new “genetic bioweapon” claims.

The U.S. government was not the one to make a fuss about this. It was Russia. So what sort of convoluted logic have you used to reach the conclusion that this was an American provocation to “sow division between Ukrainians and Russians”?

Are you people able to condemn the Russian government….. at all? I mean, you can’t even come out and say “OK, this is a false, baseless accusation, intending to make the U.S. look bad and create a victim out of Russia.”

So far, nobody has presented evidence to prove that there is anything remotely harmful about this. Well-educated Russian scientists have themselves ridicued this notion of a genetic bioweapon and have explained that this collection is entirely harmless. The only reason Russians were mentioned is because the contractor supplied Russian DNA samples as test data. I myself have explained the difference between a genetic bioweapon and a bioweapon manufactured using genetic engineering.

So, back to square one: anything to substaniate these claims? No. None. Zero. Not even a little bit. In other words, baseless accusations that have been repeated by the guillible “alternative” media.

Either supply evidence or admit that (gasp!) the Russian government and state media lied to demonize the U.S. The same holds for the author of this website, where “facts should really be sacred.” Unless, of course, these “facts” make the U.S. government look bad. Then, they don’t really have to be all that “sacred”.

Which well-educated Russian scientists have ridicued this notion of a genetic bioweapon and have explained that this collection is entirely harmless? Links please (from credible sources). In what other country or countries is the US collecting DNA and for what reason?

Mikhail Davydov, the head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, told The Moscow Times that there was nothing new about how Russian samples were being collected. “This has been going on for twenty years,” he said, adding that the practice was reciprocal. “We send material to various countries, and they send material to us.”

But could RNA interference be used to target the Russian ethnic group? Konstantin Severinov, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology and Rutgers University in the U.S., says it would be “impossible.” “For it to work, the weapon would have to target a group of people with a shared specific genetic marker while excluding anyone who doesn’t have that marker. In a modern country the size of Russia — or the United States or China, for example — these kinds of specific markers just don’t exist, since people living there have long, mixed genetic histories. The guy standing next to you on the metro in Moscow could be more dissimilar to you genetically than some guy on the subway in New York.”

Mikhail Gelfand, deputy director of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that the goal of studying genetic material is primarily to cure diseases, not to develop weapons. “If such weapons were possible, we would have already cured cancer by now. That would be relatively easy: The patient is right in front of you, so you don’t have to drop something out of an airplane and hope it lands on people below.” Gelfand also said that, hypothetically, it could be possible to develop a biological weapon but only to target some very isolated group that hadn’t been in contact with anyone else for thousands of years. “It is probably possible if you spend a lot of money to develop a weapon that could exterminate the inhabitants of some isolated island,” said Gelfand. “But it would be much easier to just show up and kill them.” Gelfand,

That’s three distinguished, non-political Russian scientists, some of whom even work for the government at the highest of levels: the head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, and the deputy director of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“In what other country or countries is the US collecting DNA and for what reason?”

Most countries collect DNA samples of others. It’s a normal part of research. This is not even remotely a rare event in any way. In the above excerpts, the scientists pointed out exactly this.

I believe this is enough evidence to debunk this manufactured hysteria.

The U.S. military is arguably the largest research institution in the world. And the biggest employer as well. Many things are researched and developed by the military, most of which trickle down to the civilian realm in a few years.

Thus, just because it’s the U.S. military that is funding and conducting this research, doesn’t prove that the intent is nefarious whatsoever. Militaries around the world have advanced research institutes to research debilitating diseases. DNA samples are sometimes required for this.

I have enjoyed our respecftul discussion. I think it’s time to call it a day, unless a geneticist here can prove the existence of “genetic bioweapons” and supply proof that the U.S. is harvesting Russian DNA to create such a weapon.

As I said, it was the contractor that the U.S. government contracted with that decided to do this. Regarding Russians in America, the reason is obvious: you would have to confirm that these are pure ethnic Russians, and this is far harder than simply going to Russia and finding some people.

Actually, your question can be used to disprove what you are claiming. If this data is indeed being collected to make a “genetic bioweapon”, then it would be easier to just take data from ethnic Russians in America instead of Russians in another country.

“Regarding Russians in America, the reason is obvious: you would have to confirm that these are pure ethnic Russians” — Hah, that is the very reason why the US needs to go to Russia in order to get the genetic information in order to develop a bioweapon! Thanks!

I don’t get your logic here. If the U.S. wanted to discreetly make a bioweapon to target ethnic Russians, then it wouldn’t mind the extra work of verifyng whether the DNA samples from Russian-Americanas were of pure Russians.

But if what I am saying is true, namely, that the contractor hired by the Air Force didn’t want to go through this hassle so it simply went to Russia, then it does indeed debunk this hoax.

After all this back and forth, multiple examples given by me pointing out the lack of evidence, lack of logic, lack of “genetic bioweapons”, and statements by multiple distinguished Russian scientists themselves, it’s time to put this matter to rest.

This article needs to be updated if “facts really are sacred”. OffGuardian claims that it holds itself to a higher standard than the MSM. So please update the article with the information I’ve posted. It’s not much that I’m asking for.

Lol @ harmless collection of DNA samples. My logic is pretty simple and its basis is that US has a strategic goal of dismembering Russia. Look at captive nations legislation that Trump renewed. Every US action has to be viewed from that perspective.

Nothing you’ve stated proves anything you’ve claimed. In an above I post, I quoted three highly-distuingished Russian scientists, some of whom work in Russian government-funded institutes, who debunked this entire story. They know far more than you or me.

Further, there is simply zero evidence that the U.S. collected these DNA samples for harmful purposes. Saying “the US has a strategic goal of dismembering Russia” is not a replacement for evidence. You can’t blame the U.S. for something it never did just by saying that.

Here is what the Russian scientists said to debunk this hoax:

Mikhail Davydov, the head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, told The Moscow Times that there was nothing new about how Russian samples were being collected. “This has been going on for twenty years,” he said, adding that the practice was reciprocal. “We send material to various countries, and they send material to us.”

But could RNA interference be used to target the Russian ethnic group? Konstantin Severinov, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology and Rutgers University in the U.S., says it would be “impossible.” “For it to work, the weapon would have to target a group of people with a shared specific genetic marker while excluding anyone who doesn’t have that marker. In a modern country the size of Russia — or the United States or China, for example — these kinds of specific markers just don’t exist, since people living there have long, mixed genetic histories. The guy standing next to you on the metro in Moscow could be more dissimilar to you genetically than some guy on the subway in New York.”

Mikhail Gelfand, deputy director of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that the goal of studying genetic material is primarily to cure diseases, not to develop weapons. “If such weapons were possible, we would have already cured cancer by now. That would be relatively easy: The patient is right in front of you, so you don’t have to drop something out of an airplane and hope it lands on people below.” Gelfand also said that, hypothetically, it could be possible to develop a biological weapon but only to target some very isolated group that hadn’t been in contact with anyone else for thousands of years. “It is probably possible if you spend a lot of money to develop a weapon that could exterminate the inhabitants of some isolated island,” said Gelfand. “But it would be much easier to just show up and kill them.” Gelfand,

That’s three distinguished, non-political Russian scientists, some of whom even work for the government at the highest of levels: the head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, and the deputy director of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences

You didn’t read carefully what I said. I said that this is another element of information warfare. Its practical value is questionable as most scientists agree. Its primary goal is to agitate information space between Russia and Ukraine and its pretty effective and fits well with hostile strategy of USA that I cited.

At this point, we have established that the U.S. is not developing “genetic bioweapons” using these Russian DNA samples. I think we are in agreement here.

I did read your original comment. This is what it said:

“Its basic goal is division between Ukrainians and Russians. (note the “not Ukrainian DNA” in the request). ”

I once again can not comprehend how you manage to blame an anti-American smear campaign on the U.S., who you claim wants to “agitate [the] information space between Russia and Ukraine”, all because of a single sentence in the contractor request, which mentioned the samples should be from Russia and not Ukraine. It’s clear that there has been no “agitation of the information space” from the U.S. side regarding this and Ukraine/Russia. Nor can you find any examples. Did the Russian/Ukrainian/Western media make a big fuss about this single sentence and cause division with a divisive debate of the genetic differences between Ukrainians and Russians? No.

There is simply no validty to your statement and I think you just want to deflect criticism of Russia lying about this. Hence, you picked this very, very, weak and insignificant point, making it seem like a big deal, when it really isn’t,

This article has still not been updated with the correct information. It seems the so-called “alternative” media is allowed to re-print smears, as long as they make the West look bad. And retractions are too much for these truth-telling mediums.

Russia is enemy as defined by recent sanction laws passed. Check.
US is soliciting DNA samples from enemy.
Check.
Enemy is questioning the motive behind intent of the solicitation.
Matt’s response: Why are you worried? You are just our enemy, and we are good guys..

Matt, you are a moron and by length of your posts I see this is a full time job for you.

Once again, you are using poor deductive reasoning to guess that somehow, the U.S. is at fault here. The correct logic goes more like this:

U.S. AF has many reseach labs to study debilitating diseases, mainly to help sick American soldiers improve performance. Check.

U.S. AF asks a contractor to provide a special form of DNA samples for an experiment. Check.

Contractor supplies DNA samples, for a fee. The samples come from Russia, chosen at random, without the U.S. AF specifically asking for them. Check

Months later, U.S. AF has to perform additional experiments to compare with previous test data. AF makes sure to request sample from the same country of origin as before, for control data. Check.

Russian government/media spread anti-Western disinformation regarding MH17, the CIA killing Nemtsov, etc. and all demonize the West, using it as a boogeyman. Check.

Russia starts a disinformation campaign to make itself look like a victim of a potential U.S. biological attack, using a bioweapon built from Russian DNA samples. Check

Gullible Western alternative media and associated conspiracy theorists pick up on this fake news and act as amplifiers. Check

I never insulted you, but now you call me a “moron”, coincidentally, when you were backed into a corner in your argument.

Regarding the length of my posts, most take no more than 3-4 minutes to type, plus some additional copying of exceprts from linked articles. I fail to see how spending less than 15 minutes a day replying to posts here constitutes “a full time job for [me].”

And similarly there is zero evidence that US weapons build up around Russia (NATO) is done with harmful intent. Zero evidence that all the heavy war-mongering propaganda has any bearing on any of this. Zero evidence that spying on world-wide citizen communications has any relevance to this story. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. You know, Freedom.
Connecting the dots is only for conspiracy theorists.
Is this what you agree with?

Reading the comments below (mainly Matt’s): the question arises as to whether the US Military would weaponise and deploy a virus against targeted members of a population? The overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from the AMERITHRAX case (immediately post 9/11) is YES – they would. Persons unknown: with access (probably to the Dugway Proving Ground – NOT Ft Detrich) and beyond Top Secret security clearance; obtained and targeted at least two Congressmen, various journalists, and members of the public (associated with the alleged hijackers) with weaponised anthrax. FACT.

[So Matt] – if you want to believe Dr Bruce Ivins weaponised the virus in his lunch breaks with no one noticing – good luck. If you want to believe that AQ chemists weaponised the virus in the Tora Bora caves: or that Saddam weaponised lactose powder in his ‘Winnebagos of Death’ – I can’t help you. No one can. The weight of evidence (and Richard Lambert – the FBI’s lead investigator on the case) says that’s all bullshit. The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the US military attacked their own population with WMD’s. If they could do that: would they target a foreign population??? Get over it.

Also [Matt]: Cyber Berkut hacked emails and documents between Poroshenko and Soros in 2015. In the published memos: Soros talks of his plans for [his] “new” Ukraine – including providing “lethal assistance” to “restore the fighting capacity” the Kiev neo-Nazi junta. In recent months: Soros’ agent, John McCain (in his role of Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) authorised the markup of $500m for “lethal defensive” weapons for Ukraine. So does “disinformation” sometimes come true: or is this just a coincidence???

CyberBerkut has been confirmed to spread disinformation. I’ve been examining their antics for a while.

I have been researching the group that edited documents to try and make the popular anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny, look like a Soros/CIA puppet. The name of the group is CyberBerkut and it emerged around the annexation of Crimea in March, 2014. It purports to be a pro-Russian Ukrainian hacking group, that supports the Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
However, it can be stated with high confidence that this group is actually a disinformation front for Russian intelligence. Basically, this isn’t the first time CyberBerkut pretended to hack a video/document/audio but in reality, forged some stuff and then pretended to “hack” it from enemies of the Kremlin.

One of the earliest examples of disinformation by CyberBerkut was this video(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsehPE5cEFs) which it claimed it “hacked” from the laptop of one of John McCain’s aides when he visited Ukraine as a show of U.S. support (McCain is demonized in Russian media for being a hardliner towards Russia). They claimed the video shows some actors pretending to be Jihadi John and James Foley, his execution being filmed in front of a green screen! But the good folks over at MetaBunk did a frame-by-frame comparison of the real execution video and the so-called “leaked” filming of the set. They found that the actor had different movements compared to the real JJ, along with several other visual mismatches. Here’s the full debunking:

This “secret” video was prominently featured on sites like InfoWars and Global Research.
Now, who would have the time, money, resources, and will power (complete with actors, clothing, cameras, props, etc.,) to put so much effort into creating a fake video to spread the conspiracy theory that America is staging ISIS’ videos and is controlling it? Only a state like Russia, of course.

Another example is when CyberBerkut pretended to hack documents from Ukraine’s SBU. One document was a confidential letter from Vasili Gritsak (SBU’s First Deputy Chairman and the head of its Anti-Terrorism Center) to Hennadiy Kuznetsov (SBU Colonel, then head of Special Operations Center A, a unit responsible for special anti-terrorist operations), appearing to show Gritsak directing Kuznetsov to carry out “false flag” attacks in Eastern Ukraine to blame on pro-Russian separatists. The objective of forging these documents and then pretending to hack them from Ukraine’s SBU was to make it look like pro-Russian separatists were being unfairly blamed for civilian deaths.

Some of the documents taken by one group were altered in a bid to try and link Soros to Russian anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, revealing how hackers likely working for Moscow are editing documents to smear their victims.
Among the documents posted, at least three appear on both sites. The documents posted by CyberBerkut have been edited to try to show that Open Society provides significant financial support to Navalny.

CyberBerkut edited one budget document to include a line describing a grant to Navalny’s Foundation for Fighting Corruption to the tune of either $240,000 or $122,000 — CyberBerkut’s editors managed to put two different amounts on the same budget line. In another document titled, “Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017,” CyberBerkut added the name of Navalny’s foundation to a paragraph describing the lack in Russia of “institutions that focus analytically on issues of policy relevance.” By adding the Foundation for Fighting Corruption to that paragraph, CyberBerkut falsely implied that Navalny’s group received financial support from Open Society.

And CyberBerkut edited a third document, which describes how Russian nonprofits are complying with the country’s harsh laws governing civil society groups, to claim that Navalny receives support from Yandex, a Russian internet services firm that competes with Google.

My original point still stands: CyberBerkut is a disinformation entity, that has a habit of either hacking real files and then editing them, or pretending to hack something from somewhere, but in reality, merely having created the files themselves. I gave many examples of them doing this above (took a while!). The link by the Canadian Citizen Lab is extremely in-depth, comparing the true content of some hacked emails with the edited versions put out by CyberBerkut.

Regarding the Soros documents, the leak of Soros’ Open Soviety Foundation was performed them and then the files were also released by the anonymous entity known as “DCLeaks” whose targets include former SoS Colin Powell and former NATO General Breedloves. CyberBerkut took some of those hacked documents and modified them. The DC Leaks dump included the release of untainted stolen documents that had been previously released as part of a tainted leak by Cyber Berkut. The redundant releases allow a comparison of documents between the two leaks.

Example:

CyberBerkut edited one budget document to include a line describing a grant from Soros’ OSF to Navalny’s Foundation for Fighting Corruption to the tune of either $240,000 or $122,000 — CyberBerkut’s editors managed to put two different amounts on the same budget line. In another document titled, “Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017,” CyberBerkut added the name of Navalny’s foundation to a paragraph describing the lack in Russia of “institutions that focus analytically on issues of policy relevance.” By adding the Foundation for Fighting Corruption to that paragraph, CyberBerkut falsely implied that Navalny’s group received financial support from Open Society.

In conclusion, I am not disputing that some of their hacks are genuine. That said, the point of mine that you were addressing was about CB being a disinformation entity. I’ve given several examples proving this. Tainting real leaks with insertions and deletions is disinformation, despite some documents containing the truth.

You are talking about a different matter altogether, one that does not prove or disprove the current claims of the U.S. harvesting Russian DNA samples to make a “bioweapon”. But even using the AMERITHRAX case as a premise, I would have to disagree that the U.S. military was behind it and deliberately deployed it. Irvins was indeed mentally ill, and even wrote letters in code, with the hidden message expressing his hatred of NY and a former colleague. Regarding “no one noticing”, records show that he spent an unusual amount of time at night in his high-security lab in the periods before the two mailings of the anthrax letters. He had a pattern of sending letters and packages from remote locations under assumed names. In his emails, he described serious mental problems.

“The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the US military attacked their own population with WMD’s. If they could do that: would they target a foreign population??? Get over it.”

Get over what exactly? Only 5 people died from the virus. If the U.S. military wanted to cleanse the populace with a WMD, as you believe, then it could have done much worse. This is not only false, but does nothing to substantiate the false statements from Russia about the U.S. developing genetic bioweapons. It’s a strawman. And a false one at that. Saying the evidence is “overwhelming” does nothing to prove your point.

As for Lambert, he’s a typical disgruntled employee who sued his former employer because he was fired from his job as a senior counterintelligence officer at the Energy Department lab. He claims this was in retaliation for his dissent on the anthrax case, but in reality, because Lambert had to work with F.B.I. agents in his new job, he was violating a conflict-of-interest law that forbade former federal employees from contacting previous colleagues for a year after they had left their government jobs. After he was dismissed due to this, he wasn’t able to find work despite applying for more than 70 jobs. Heck, his disgruntlement even forms the basis of his lawsuit! It asserts that several other former F.B.I. agents were able to take identical intelligence jobs with the Energy Department and that he was singled out for mistreatment. The other claims of the case are just of typical bureaucratic incompetence spiced up for the purposes of helping Lambert.

It’s a highly technical argument: not one I would attempt to do justice to – but the likelihood of Ivins drying, electrostatically charging, and micro-encapsulating anthrax spores alone in his lab is less than zero. I would refer you to Graeme MacQeens book on the subject – The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy [ISBN-13: 978-0986073120.]

Talking of strawmen: you type a lot but fail to address the main point I made – that the US military is capable of targeting its own citizens for political purposes. 5 or 500: that’s state sanctioned murder and a crime against humanity. MacQueen makes a compelling case that the 9/11 attacks and the AMERITHRAX attacks were carried out by the same perpetrators. Probably too conspiratorial for you?

BTW: the reason I don’t address the bioweapons issue is that I tend to agree with you that this is not what the US Airforce is up to. I have had the science explained to me (forgive me if I choose not to show my ignorance by trying to reproduce it here). We are basically talking about weaponising and targeting the Caucasian genotype. What bright spark white supremacist eugenecist would do that? Targeting a specific haplogroup would render the bioweapon near useless against most Russians (as the article makes clear.) Where we would differ, is that I don’t assume benign intent. The Americans are capable of anything: that is my incontrovertible and unassailable point. Though you will probably want to argue that too???

Thank you for the link. I have not read the book, but from reading summaries, it seems the author tries to use deductive logic to arrive at his central thesis, instead of evidence. Just because neocons used the attacks to demonize Iraq, doesn’t mean they were the ones behind the attacks.

I would like to reiterate that I don’t believe the U.S. military was behind the AMERITHRAX attacks. There’s simply no evidence backing this statement up, other than insinuations of cui bono. I’m glad we’re in agreement there.

“Where we would differ, is that I don’t assume benign intent. The Americans are capable of anything: that is my incontrovertible and unassailable point. Though you will probably want to argue that too???”

Most countries, including the USSR and the U.S., performed live human experimentation with bioweapons to test their effects. So I certainly would not argue against your point, but I will make one distinction: the U.S. is not alone in being capable of doing this.

The problem with evidence is that can only lead so far. Even court cases deal with deductive reasoning and logic; to augment and draw inference from the balance, weight and probability of evidence. You could say the verdict is speculative: or you could say that the evidence points only to one logical conclusion. As I have already stated: there is only one logical conclusion to be drawn – the American military targeted their own population to create a climate of fear in order to advance a series of otherwise unjustifiable wars. If they can do that: they can and will do anything.

Without re-reading the book: the case that Professor MacQueen makes is compelling for one major reason – the AMERITHRAX attacks prove foreknowledge of 9/11. If Ivins was unstable, was he also psychic? Or, in the case of Mohammed Atta: was he too also psychic? Or did he just randomly manage to target the only two patriots that resisted the Patriot Act (Senators Leahy and Daschle)? Was Ivins able to have foreknowledge of 9/11 AND know who would dissent the passage of the Patriot Act? The whole concocted story can be destroyed with deductive logic alone in a matter of seconds. QED.

The whole at-face-value story of a follow up wave of terrorist attacks; the “dual perpetrator” theory of al-Qaeda in conjunction with Iraq (which became the thesis for the Iraq war); the Ivins ‘lone wolf’ confection – are all specious and demonstrably logically fallacious. I don’t know why you think we are in agreement: because I infer that the only possible conclusion is that the US military did it. That is no mere supposition: it is where the evidence points. And whoever perpetrated the AMERITHRAX attacks had prior knowledge of 9/11: so is it so illogical to link these events? Is it so unreasonable to assume that the perpetrators were one and the same???

[And this is just the bones of it. Professor MacQueen makes a much more detailed, compelling, and evidentially based case than I ever could. It can’t be refuted by simply reading a summary.]

Finally, you seem very capable of laying a detailed and well researched smokescreen. Perhaps you could display your own deductive logic and detail a plausible alternative thesis that exonerates the US military???

PS. Probably all nations have developed bio-weapons. The difference, in this context, is that it is the US – not the Russian Federation – who have demonstrated the willingness to use them. I await your evidentially based alternative thesis on how they did not.

” I don’t know why you think we are in agreement: because I infer that the only possible conclusion is that the US military did it.”

I made an additional post to correct my previous one, to clarify that I was talking about us being in agreement regarding the fact that the AF is not creating genetic weapons to target Russians.

Regarding the AMERITHRAX attacks, I do not think it is logical to state that just because the U.S. used these attacks to demonize Iraq, that this means it was the U.S. military. If I were a neocon in that era, I would try to connect any terror attack with Iraq. So any attack that happens is blamed on Iraq.

You will have to fill me in regarding the claim that the AMERITHRAX attacks prove foreknowledge of 9/11. Regarding the attacked Senators, you have incorrect information. Many voted against the Patriot Act. 66 Congresspersons voted against the Act in the House, and one Senator voted against the Act in the Senate: Russ Feingold. So the anthrax attacks did not “target the only two patriots that resisted the Patriot Act”.

Regarding an “alternative” thesis: no evidence has been presented to prove that the U.S. military did it. So it’s difficult for me to provide an alternative to the “official” alternative, as that is the one I think is true.

Lastly, regarding the usage of bioweapons by countries, I mentioned earlier that both the U.S. and USSR used live human experimentation to test. Neither, to my knowledge, used bioweapons in a conflict scenario after they signed various treaties regarding bioweapons. Of course, since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the U.S. have drastically cut bioweapons programs to make them compliant with the Biological Weapons Convention. There is no difference, thus, between the U.S. and Russia regarding bioweapons tests.

Hand written content of one of the letters. These were sent a week after 9/11: no big controversy there. They were clearly intended to be viewed as a second wave of attacks (by Ivins?) That was the original story. What is interesting is that story began to circulate BEFORE October 3rd. And sales of Cipro (an anthrax antidote spiked in that period.) And the exact scenario was drilled in operation ‘Dark Winter’ three months prior to the attacks: which simulated an bioweapons attack on several of the people who later were actually attacked (most notably Judith Miller.) Coincidence, huh???

I see what you are trying to do. If you look in isolation at any of MacQueens points – they can indeed look weak and circumstantial. But developed in context they construct a compelling case. And relying on the frailty of my human memory to pick apart his thesis does not diminish the thesis. If you want to rationally assess the case: you’ll have to read the book. I stand by my acceptance of its central thesis: even if I can’t adequately defend it. It remains a compelling “Case for a Domestic Conspiracy.” [Its subtitle.] Whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. But to argue against it – using me as a proxy – won’t help you decide.

Checking the source: it wasn’t that Daschle and Leahy opposed the Patriot Act (they didn’t) – it was that they wanted to slow down its passage.

In 2011, the National Academy of Sciences published a review of the FBI case into Ivins. The “academy’s analysis concluded that the RMR-1029 [Ivins] flask was not the immediate source of the letter material because it presented characteristics not shared with the letters” So if not Atta, AQ, Iraq, Hatfill or Ivins – then who? You keep saying it wasn’t the US military – someone did this and tried to pass it off as the work of radical jihadist terrorists – to pass the Patriot Act; authorise NSA mass surveillance; and launch the GWOT – who?

The letter whose contents you described was found by the FBI in mid-October. Further, a few days before the letter was found, Bush remarked on a photo editor at the Sun tabloid getting infected, by saying “it’s just an isolated incident”. Hardly sounds like fearmongering.

Further, Judith Miller was never attacked by a bioweapon. It was a hoax letter that she was sent:

“it wasn’t that Daschle and Leahy opposed the Patriot Act (they didn’t) – it was that they wanted to slow down its passage.”

So this works against your point, because many Congresspersons who directly voted against the Act, including the sole Senator, were never attacked. This debunks the conspiracy theory that those who opposed the Act were targeted

The Academy review was written as a critique of the FBI’s laying of the evidece. Thus, the sentence that you quoted should be read carefully:

“The academy’s analysis concluded that the RMR-1029 [Ivins] flask was not the immediate source of the letter material because it presented characteristics not shared with the letters.”

Key word: immediate. The Academy was basically saying that Irvins flask was not the immediate precursor and that if it was his flask, then it must have gone through some additional processing, which the FBI should have listed in order to prove it was Irvins flask. It does not debunk the FBI’s claims at all. It’s just a critique on the rigorousness of the FBI’s investigation. It does not disprove that it was Irvins.

“You keep saying it wasn’t the US military – someone did this and tried to pass it off as the work of radical jihadist terrorists – to pass the Patriot Act; authorise NSA mass surveillance; and launch the GWOT – who?”

A member working for U.S. government insitution was responsible. If the government wanted to “pass it off as the work of radical jihadist terrorists” then they would have never blamed Irvins. Not was this single event used to pass the Patriot Act or authorize mass serveillance or launch the War on Terror. 9/11 was the cause of that.

In conclusion, all you’ve been able to point out is that the FBI could have been more thorough and concrete in its laying out of the evidence. While this is true, it is not even remotely the same as proving this was a “false flag” to simultanously attack critics of the Patriot Act and evoke wisespread fear. Nor does it do anything to prove that the U.S. government is collecting Russian DNA for malicous purposes, the original topic.

One more thing: you claimed in an earlier post that the letter indicated foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. But if the letter was found in October, then it obviously happened after 9/11. So it doesn’t indicate this at all.

I have to laugh at the “letter” and it’s hysterical statements, like this:

” either developing bioweapons or practicing eugenics and, God forbid, of following in the footsteps of infamous Dr. Mengele.”

“So, are you trying to develop a “targeted” genetic weapon against the Russians if such a thing is scientifically feasible at all?”

“Looking forward to hearing from you and clearing up the matter, which has the potential of sparking a media equivalent of the Caribbean crisis.”

Just read the comments here. Many are assuming that the U.S. AF will use these samples to conduct a “false flag and then blame poor Russia. Right. As if the U.S. has no access to Russian DNA samples and has to publicly ask for them in order to conduct a “false flag” against poor Russia.

There’s no such thing as a “genetic bioweapon”. Imagine if the U.S. government began accusing Russia of doing this? This website would’ve pumped out article after article ridiculing the U.S.

But the author is right in one aspect: this is a psyop. Russia has launched a disinformation campaign to make it look like the U.S, is making biological weapons to target Russia:

Would you mind linking us to the MSM coverage of this? Because I certainly couldn’t find any in my research. Defense News is a small site with limited readership, hardly a big media outlet.

Secondly, it was not “debunked”…it was denied. Those are two very different things. Saying, “we’re doing research and used Russian DNA by accident, so we need to keep using Russians” is not a story that convinces me. If it convinces you, fine, but you would at least agree that it is a remarkable coincidence?

If it turned out that the Iranian government put out a request for American DNA for unnamed research, and when asked about the project said “we used Americans by accident the first time, so we have to keep using Americans”…would you beleive them? Would the US State Department believe them?

What do you think the media coverage of that story would be like?

As you can see, we are not averse to discussing or debating the articles and issues on our site, however we will not accept abuse. Please refrain from name-calling in the future.

Like I said, there’s no such thing as “genetic bioweapons.” It’s something that doesn’t exist, but is now being used to vilify the U.S. government.

And who said the U.S. AF “accidentally” used these samples? The way this stuff works is the U.S. AF contracts a company to give them sample DNA samples. The AF never chose these samples to come from Russia, nor was it an accident. The company merely gave them samples of Russians. When the AF requested for a control group, they made sure to specify they wanted samples from the same country as before, this being Russia.

There is nothing to look at here or examine. It’s good old fashioned psychological warfare. I gave links to similar claims by the separatist governments in Georgia, and of the well-known disinformation group “CyberBerkut” spreading the same fake news. I even recall the DPR official media making similar accusations, of the U.S. doing the same in Ukraine:

Thus, the Russian state media and associated proxy media outlets have been spreading baseless disinformation about the U.S. conducting biological warfare in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, etc. These claims are fairly varied. Some involve ‘experimentation”, some involve “leaked viruses”, some involve “genetic bioweapons”, etc. This is a coordinated psychological warfare campaign.

Your links are interesting, but not for the reasons you state. Yes, the BBC, Indy and Newsweek mention Putin’s accusations – but not one of them acknowledge or discuss the USAF memo requesting the biological material. That’s a deliberate lie by omission. In fact they go so far as to claim it is a baseless accusation…when it is backed up by government sources from the US.

Do you think this is unbiased reporting and objective coverage?

That you dismiss us as “propaganda” and then cite RFE/RL as a source displays a distinct lack of irony. You must be aware of the origins of that “news” organization.

Like I said, there’s no such thing as “genetic bioweapons.” It’s something that doesn’t exist, but is now being used to vilify the U.S. government.

That there are no known “genetic bioweapons” currently known to the wider public is moot. That does not preclude either covert weapons or purely theoretical ones. Since the point of the article is “research”, it seems bizarre to focus on the fact it hasn’t already produced widely known results.

I will repeat the questions already asked, because you missed them the first time round:

If this story were reversed, if Iran or China or Russia were collecting American DNA samples would you dismiss it in the same off-hand manner?

Would the US State Dept. ignore it?

Would the media give it the same scant, dishonest and slanted coverage?

“That you dismiss us as “propaganda” and then cite RFE/RL as a source displays a distinct lack of irony. You must be aware of the origins of that “news” organization.”

Indeed, these statements are without evidence. They are part of a long list of similar accusations recently, all made in a coordinated manner by various seperatist governments of breakaway territories in Ukraine and Georgia. And in Armenia too. I gave several links, so please read them and tell me what you think.

“That there are no known “genetic bioweapons” currently known to the wider public is moot. That does not preclude either covert weapons or purely theoretical ones.”

One needs evidence for accusations. Saying “Mayyyybe” this is true isn’t enough. Otherwise, this is known as slander. Has Russia produced evidence that these samples were taken for the purposes of a “bioweapon” and have all the reasonable theories that would explain these in a non-nefarious manner been discarded and debunked?

The answer is no.

“I will repeat the questions already asked, because you missed them the first time round”

Yes, I would dismiss them as being completely riduculous. DNA samples from specific regions are collected all the time for research purposes. It’s no big deal. Yes, the State Department would ignore it. As for the “scant” coverage, I already debunked this false statement. Nor do you see the irony in having the audacity to claim the Western media has been “dishonest” for not giving wall-to-wall coverage of a slanderous and baseless accusation, when you repeat misinformation from the dishonest Russian state media. That is supremely ironic.

Now let me ask you a question: would off-guardian still have published a similar article if the U.S. was claiming Russia was developing bioweapons because their military took some DNA samples of Americans? No. At the top of the page, there would have been articles talking about how the Russophobic American media and government blame Russia for everything and how these accusations are baseless due to the lack of evidence and issues of dealing with genetic diversity.

I have now addressed all your points. Will you post an update to the article where you admit that this information is baseless? I doubt it. The way pro-Kremlin operate is that they spread conspiracy theories through the state media (Sputnik, RT, Russia24, etc.) and non-state media then act as amplifiers (various blogs like this one). This disinformation then spreads through outlets like this one. I recall the same happening with MH17.

I also see you did not address my links showing similar lies of American “biological” warfare in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, being made by the Kremlin media. There’s a pattern of creative lies by the pro-Kremlin proxy governments.

Matt has been trolling Mark Chapman’s Kremlin Stooge blog, flooding it with biased comment and links to articles at sites whose prejudices and agendas agree with his own, and generally disrupting and diverting conversations into never-ending argument that achieves nothing because he rubbishes other people’s contributions and changes the subject if other people’s challenges disprove or defeat his assertions. I suggest you do not reply to any of Matt’s comments and just let them hang.

Indeed, because I disagreed with users on Mr. Chapman’s blog, I was branded a “troll”. But there’s no need to bring drama from other blogs here.

In this specific discussion, I have given my side of the argument. I have not changed the topic, “trolled”, or done anything else.

Rather than attacking me in an ad hominem manner and trying to stir unnecessary drama taken from another website, why don’t you address my arguments? This is a form of bullying: following someone across several websites and asking people to ignore someone because you don’t like them.

No incorrect information? Despite my comments extensively proving this to be disinformation? One of which you never bothered replying to?

I never claimed you have links to the Kremlin or any other government. You also failed to warn a user who, out of the blue, called me a “moron”. You thus accused me of “abusing” others here, without reason, and then ignore real abuse by others towards me.

What I did say, however, is that you spread incorrect information, which I have extensively addressed and debunked in my comments. Thus, the insinuations in the article should be retracted. Otherwise, you are no different than the MSM.

I have given links to several highly distinguished Russian scientists debunking this. I have also posted links about similar claims being made by various pro-Russian separatist governments, in Georgia and Ukraine, and of pro-Kremlin being media/state tv/hacking groups spreading this disinformation. I have myself addressed the allegations and pointed out several flaws in them.

Is it OK to spread false information, as long as it makes the U.S. look bad? Is this ethical? It’s only bad when the MSM spreads conspiracy theories about Russia, correct?

Both of these are completely true. You have not proven them incorrect. If you believe the research to be benign, fine, that is your prerogative. But we have no duty to “correct” our articles to coincide with your world view.

“Today, nearly all countries have the technological potential to produce large amounts of pathogenic microorganisms safely. Second, classical biowarfare agents can be made much more efficiently than their natural counterparts, with even the simplest genetic techniques. Third, with modern biotechnology it becomes possible to create completely new biological weapons. And for technical and/or moral reasons, they might be more likely to be used than classical biowarfare agents. These possibilities have generated new military desires around the world, including within those countries that have publicly renounced biological weapons in the past.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326447/#b2

Lets at least agree that the technology is already in place – the only question is who will be first to use it?

That link discusses genetically-manufactured bioweapons, not “genetic” bioweapons. This is an important distinction, because there is a difference between the manufacturing process of a bioweapon and its mode of action. I made the same point to vierotchka.

If one country is collecting genetic data to modify bioweapons (to make them more lethal) then surely it is moot to suggest that category distinction is a particularly significant issue, or outside of a purely technical debate relevant at all when either way the concern raised here pertains to extracting biological data about a population in order to damage them more efficiently?

In other words it is the collection of such data that has inspired this post, whereas, and alost by definition, its precise use will be somewhat speculatice since I doubt if technocrats who engage in such activities will be especially keen to share their train of thought with either competitors or those outside the highly selective bubble they exist in?

I simply do not know enough to comment on the state of knowledge when it comes to outliers in the bioweapons field but at least we can all agree that the collection of MSK genetic data (In this context) is unlikely to be used to improve the health of those from whom it has been collected.

“If one country is collecting genetic data to modify bioweapons (to make them more lethal)….”

The premise of your assumption is without evidence, so one can not merely ignore anything based off of this assumption. Do we know for a fact that the U.S. collected Russian DNA samples to make bioweapons more lethal? So far, the Russian government has not supplied any evidence.

They have previously lied about a mythical American bioweapons factory in Georgia. They claimed the facility, which has been accredited by WHO and has nothing to do with bio weapons, has rejected requests by Russian scientists to visit, making them “suspicious”. Except… many Russian researchers have in fact visited the facility, to the point where some have even done research there! This is why I find these new accusations absurd.

Since neither of us are experts about this stuff, we can not assume the data can not be used for research purposes.

In case people have forgotten, the Winter Olympics are being held in March next year in South Korea (Pyeongchang) and then during the northern summer Russia is hosting the FIFA World Cup. The US Air Force doesn’t have that much time to collect the DNA samples (for the time being it may be the only agent capable of doing that) and try to pass them on to interested parties to make a case for banning Russia from the Winter Olympics because of its athletes having “banned substances in their blood samples” (while other teams are stacked with competitors with medical exemption certificates for asthma-related conditions) and transferring the soccer tournament to another country among other things. An odd false flag incident at the Winter Olympics that can be blamed on the Russians wouldn’t go astray either.

Calling someone a crackpot or similar without providing a reason and and an argument supporting it only discredits you and makes you look like a prick who needs to insult others to big himself up. It’s a sign of weak character.

I think many people are too quick to accept a poorly supported conspiracy or false flag theory as an explanation for an event when there are more plausible possibilities to consider.

HOWEVER conspiracies and false flags happen and some sound absolutely nutty to the average MSM zombie. Imagine a person in the 1960s telling a 60s version of you that the CIA was using patients in a Canadian hospital as lab rats for LSD experiments and the US Military was dosing black American soldiers with STDs. You’d probably make a snide remark dismissing them as crackpots and feel very superior and clever.

Except it was later proven that those things happened and the CIA/US Army were forced to admit it.

A very suspicious just-released document that is almost certainly a fabrication is the file from “Osama bin Laden” that “proves” al Qaeda collaborated with the government of Iran to perpetuate the 911 event. And anyone who critically examines the evidence provided to support the official version of 911, and the many inconsistencies , loose ends and weird happenings before, during and after the twin towers collapsed, would have to conclude that the official story is just that, a story.

“A very suspicious just-released document that is almost certainly a fabrication is the file from “Osama bin Laden” that “proves” al Qaeda collaborated with the government of Iran to perpetuate the 911 event”

This is incorrect. The OBL files released by the CIA indicate that Al-Queda was being given covert help by Iranian intelligence so it could attack American interests in countries like Saudi Arabia. It has nothing to do with 9/11. You thus created a strawman, which you then proeceeded to debunk.

Despite the secterian differences, Iran has been more than willing to give Jihadists protection in the country, including allowing AQ members to meet in the country, and funelling them money.

However, the Iranians were very cautious. They gave explicit instructions to the AQ members that they were to never use electronic communication devices in the country or talk about their relationship with Iran while using these devices. Iran knew full well that the U.S. would be listening on to these calls. Finally, when the AQ members did the opposite and became careless, Iran stopped support.

There is nothing indicating that this information is fake. Syria was used as a conduit by Iran to funnel Jihadists through to Iraq, during the American occuption after 2003. This is old, old news. But the released files only confirm what has been generally known.

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.